The History of India
India has frequently been subjected to horrors of famine. From 1858 to the end of the 19th century, more than twenty famines occurred in India.
A major characteristic of British rule in India, and the net result of British economic policies, was the prevalence of extreme poverty among its people. While historian disagree on the question whether India was getting poorer or not under British rule, there is no disagreement on the fact that throughout the period of British rule most Indians always lived on the verge of starvation.
British economic exploitation, the decay of indigenous industries, the failure of modern industries to replace them, high taxation, the drain of wealth to Britain and a backward agrarian structure leading to the stagnation of agriculture and the exploitation of the poor peasants by the zamindars, landlords, princes, moneylenders, merchants and the state gradually reduced the Indian people to extreme poverty and prevented them from progressing.
Indian economic backwardness and poverty were not due to the niggardliness of nature. They were manmade. The natural resources of India were abundant and capable of yielding if properly utilised, a high degree of prosperity to the people. But, as a result of foreign rule and exploitation, and of a backward agrarian and industrial economic structure in fact as the total outcome of its historical and social development, India presented the paradox of a poor living in a rich country.
In the early days of British administration, there was a tendency to push up land revenue demand to a high level. Moreover, the British collected the revenue with greater rigour than was customary in pre-British days. They also refused to reduce revenue as a concession to farmers in a bad season. This inflexibility of revenue policy was certainly a major cause of the famines.
English traders and their agent’s activities might have contributed to the intensity of famines in some cases. In the early 19th century the forced cultivation of commercial crops for export in place of food grains may have been a factor. The neglect of the British to maintain or expand the pre-British irrigation works, in the territories that came under their rule, exposed agriculturists to their old enemy, drought. It may be concluded that the achievement of British rule in that regard was no better than that of previous unenlightened administrations.
In 1866-67 a severe famine broke out in Orissa. This has been regarded as the turning point in the history of Indian famines, for it led to the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry by Sir G. Campbell. The commission reported that timely measures had not” been taken to meet the terrible emergency. It made certain recommendations regarding measures to be adopted for prevention of famine disasters in future.
Lord Lytton decided to formulate general principals of famine relief. He appointed a Commission under Sir R. Strachy. The Commission recognised the duty of the state to offer relief to the needy in times of famine. After the famines of 1896-97 and 1899-1900, other famine commission was appointed to tackle the situation. Apart from these major famines and scarcities many other local famines and scarcities occurred. Many English officials in India recognised the grim reality of India’s poverty during the 19th century.
The poverty of India was not a product of its geography or of the lack of natural resources or of some inherent defect in the character and capabilities of the people. It was mainly a product of the history of the last two centuries. Before that, India was no more backward than the countries of Western Europe. Precisely during the period the countries of the West- developed and prospered, India was subjected to modern colonialism and was prevented from developing.
The basic fact is that the some social, political and economic processes that produced industrial development and social and cultural progress in Britain, also produced and then maintained economic underdevelopment and social and cultural backwardness in India.
The reason for this is obvious. Britain subordinated the Indian economy to its own economy and determined the basic social trends in India according to her own needs. The result was stagnation of India’s agriculture and industries, exploitation of peasants and workers, the spread poverty, disease and semi-starvation leading severe famines.
- Discuss the main features of the Roytwary Settlement in South India. Did it satisfy to aspirations of the peasantry? (I.A.S. 200, Ans. In the south and south-west India, they were no zamindars with large estates with which the settlement could be made by the company. Man British officials believed that the Permanent Settlement put the company to a financial loss as could not raise the demand of revenue.
Some of them also argued that the Permanent Settlement was oppressive to cultivator as they were left to the mercy of the zamindar A few held that a direct settlement with the cultivators would mean continuation of the affairs that had existed in the past. But, the primary consideration to devise a settlement directly with the cultivator was the motive behind the system. The system was introduced in parts of Madras and Bombay Presidencies.
Under the Ryotwari system every ‘registered’ holder of land is recognised as the proprietor of land and is held responsible for direct payment of land revenue to the State. He has the right to sublet his land holdings, to transfer, mortgage or sell it. He is not evicted from his holdings by the Government so long as he pays the State demand of land revenue.
The cultivator was to be recognised as the owner of his plot of land subject to the payment of land revenue. The settlement and the Ryotwari system were not made permanent. It was revised periodically after 20 to 30 years when the revenue demand was usually raised.
The Ryotwari system protected neither the rights of the cultivators ner put them to any financial gain. The system could not introduce peasant ownership. The state remained the owner of the land. The cultivator had to pay regular revenue otherwise they could be dispossessed of their lands any time. The demand for revenue by the government remained very high. Besides, it had the right to enhance the revenue as it pleased. The cultivators were, thus, not sure of greater advantage for their better producing.
The purpose of the Ryotwari System was to save the cultivators from the oppression of the zamindars. Though they were no more on the mercy of the zamindars but the system did not satisfy the aspirations of the peasantry. In fact, it caused widespread oppression and agricultural distress. The large number of zamindars had been replaced by one giant zamindar – the state, which only knew to squeeze as much from the peasant as possible. This did not bring into existence a system of peasant ownership. Later the government openly claimed that land revenue was a rent and not a tax.
The ryot’s lights of ownership of his land were also negated by three other factors: (i) in most areas the land revenue fixed was exorbitant; the ryot was hardly left with bare maintenance even in the best of seasons. For instance, in Madras, the Government claim was fixed as high as 45 to 55% of gross production in the earlier settlement. The situation was nearly as bad in Bombay; (ii) The Government retained the right to enhance land revenue at will, (iii) the ryot had to pay revenue even when his produce was partially or wholly destroyed by drought or floods.
The peasantry sank deeper in poverty. He fell in the clutches of the chetty (moneylender) for payment of land revenue. The machinery of collection was very oppressive and torture was normally resorted to for collection of state dues. In the British Parliament members asked questions about the practice of torture which included preventing a defaulter from taking his meals or attending to culls of nature, tying a man down in a bend position etc.
The Deccan witnessed agrarian riots in 1875 to protest the oppressive Ryotwari System. The Government responded by the enactment of the Deccan Agriculturists Relief Act, 1879. It provided relief against the moneylenders, but did nothing to restrain the excessive State demand-the root of all evils.
The two great evils of the Ryotwari system in Bombay were over assessment and uncertainty. Further, there was no provision for an appeal to the court of law against over assessment. The collector informed the cultivator of the rate at which his land had been assessed in future with the warning that if he chose to retain it on the new terms, he could; if he did not choose, he could throw it up.
Thus, the revenue policy and the different system introduced in India by the British for collecting the revenue were not in the interest of the cultivators. The demand of the state always went on increasing while the intermediaries or the government officials oppressed the tillers of the soil The British policy proved advantageous only to the government or a privileged section of the society at the cost of the cultivators who were the rightful owners of their lands and claimant of the large share of the produce.
